ACAT Whoa! Sherlock refictionalized – was Re: Change in policy on (Fictitious character) qualifier?

Posting to Autocat

On 12/9/2015 8:48 PM, Kuperman, Aaron wrote:
But Kirk, James T., ‡d 2233-2371 is still a valid heading (and while LC does not have the recent book ” The autobiography of James T. Kirk” it appears most OCLC records have him as the main entry (100 field) though one national library does not).

I find it curious that in these discussions, catalogers want their records to be included into the wider information universe. It seems only reasonable that sooner or later, catalogers should look and see what “the rest of that world” is doing.

Looking only in OCLC is looking at a “library-centric” world, similar to gazing at our own navels. It should be much more important to understand how is the wider world treating it. It’s easy enough, after all, to search “The autobiography of James T. Kirk”.

Amazon has the author as David A. Goodman (

Barnes & Noble has the author as David A. Goodman (

Google Books has the author as David A. Goodman (

Goodreads has the author as David A. Goodman (

Titan Books (the publisher) gives the author as David A. Goodman (

Becker & Meyer (another publisher) has the author as David A. Goodman (

Kirkus Reviews gives David A. Goodman as the editor ( In none of those sites does James T. Kirk appear as an author. Even on the Wikia Memory Alpha site (the Star Trek fan site), the author is David A. Goodman and Kirk’s name is not listed as an author (

I think we are seeing a trend here: people are not adding Kirk’s name to their records and using only the real author’s name. Even on the fan site, people seem comfortable dealing with reality. 🙂

This seems quite reasonable to me, and is evidence that the current cataloging practice that considers clearly fictitious people as authors is quite different from what most people would consider to be normal practice.